When Florida agency owner Steven Poulos decided to file a lawsuit against Allstate, he knew he was taking on a giant. He probably expected the response to his complaint to include some denial of the facts as he presented them. He may have even anticipated numerous requests to extend court deadlines to delay the process. After all, the company is widely known for its delay/deny/defend tactics.

According to the complaint filed in the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit in Broward County, Mr. Poulos's convoluted journey as an agency owner began in 2010 when he was contacted by an Allstate recruiter to inquire whether he would be interested in becoming an Exclusive Agent for the company. After considering the two available options - start a scratch agency or purchase an existing agency - Poulos determined that buying an agency was the way to go.

The rest of his story will sound familiar to scores, if not hundreds, of Allstate agents who have endured similar experiences in recent years. The details may vary, but the level of deceit, the abundance of misleading information and the failure to disclose pertinent and necessary facts to prospective agents is an all too familiar story. Many have contemplated legal remedies to recover damages for the loss of their investment - which may include loss of their life savings, homes and more - but few have actually followed through.

After his first attempt to buy an Orlando agency fell through, Mr. Poulos, a resident of Orlando at the time, was introduced to a "selling agent," whose agency was located some 200 miles away in Broward County. After encouragement from Allstate managers that the agency was a good fit for him, Mr. Poulos and his wife quit their jobs, relocated to south Florida and began to complete the requisite licensing and training in order to purchase the agency.

After the purchase of the agency, Poulos would discover that the seller had been terminated for cause by the company for "intentional falsification of data on insurance applications in accordance with Allstate guidelines and that of the State of Florida Department of Insurance." This fact was not revealed by the selling agent or by Allstate management.

Once the purchase was consummated, Poulos discovered that not only had he been deceived about the seller's termination for cause, but contrary to management's assertions that the book was being serviced by Allstate's call center, he learned that it was actually being serviced and cross-sold by other agents. When he questioned the TSL, the e-mail response he received stated, "as far as cross-selling the book, that really isn't happening. I'm not sure where you are getting your information."

Resolved to find justice, Poulos now finds himself facing denials and delays in his case. Allstate has access to battalions of attorneys and unlimited funds which can be leveraged to increase his legal expenses.

DenyIn its thirteen-page answer to Plaintiff 's Second Amended Complaint, Defendant Allstate used the words deny/denied/denies a whopping 53 times, often with no explanation as to why. Other times, the only explanation for its denial declares that Allstate is without knowledge of the allegation and therefore denies.

In addition, here are some of the shocking declarations in the response Allstate filed with the court:• "In connection with Plaintiff 's purchase of the RMK Agency's book of business, Allstate owed no duty to Plaintiff to disclose any information about RMK Agency's book of business."• "There is no causal relationship between the alleged conversations between Plaintiff and various Allstate personnel and Plaintiff 's alleged damages."• "Allstate has made no fraudulent or negligent misrepresentations."• "Plaintiff could not have justifiably relied on the alleged misrepresentations of Allstate."• "Liability is denied because Plaintiff failed to exercise due diligence in theconduct of his own affairs."• "Allstate and Plaintiff did not maintain a fiduciary relationship."

Extensions for numerous deadlines have been requested by Allstate, a practice many recognize as typical for the company; it is a tactic known to run up legal fees for plaintiffs.

Initially, the attorney for Poulos believed that counsel for defendant Allstate were cooperating and that the numerous extensions already granted were legitimate requests. Believing there was good rapport with opposing counsel, and in the spirit of cooperation, he spent significant time on the telephone reviewing the items requested in the Second Request to Produce.

By midsummer, Poulos's attorney, Mark London, decided to file a Motion to Compel Proper Responses to the request to produce.

In a letter to the law firm that is representing Allstate, London expressed his dismay regarding the partial response to his request to produce. "It appears that my client's concerns that Allstate is doing nothing but being dilatory in its behavior and that the professional and cooperative relationship between us is illusory is correct."

He goes on to say, "I am gravely disappointed that the professional requirement of civility and cooperation through the discovery process were merely a pretense for delay and it appears my client is right and that the only method of securing Allstate's cooperation appears to be by having the court determine each and every issue."

As discovery continues, Allstate will undoubtedly attempt to continue tactics that will run up more fees as Poulos and his attorney soldier on in their mutual quest for justice. It is clear they'll face David and Goliath battles every step of the way.

The outcome of this case could be very important to hundreds of agents across the country, who were hired by managers that were less than forthcoming about the Allstate "opportunity."

The views expressed by NAPAA, or any of its positions relative to its activities and those of its members' actions on behalf of this organization, are expressly those of NAPAA, and do not reflect the views or opinions of Allstate Insurance Company, or any of its affiliates.

Defendant, Allstate Insurance Company (“Allstate”), hereby files its Answer, Defenses,and Affirmative Defenses to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint and states as follows:

1. For jurisdictional purposes only, Allstate admits that Plaintiff is seeking damageswhich exceed the jurisdictional limits of this Court. However, Allstate denies that Plaintiff isentitled to the recovery of any damages whatsoever from Allstate.

2.Allstate is without knowledge regarding the residency of Plaintiff.

3.Allstate is an Illinois corporation authorized to do business in Florida. Allstate isa citizen of Illinois, as it is incorporated in Illinois and maintains its principal place of business inNorthbrook, Illinois.

4.RMK Insurance Group, Inc. (“the RMK agency”) n/k/a RMK Consulting Groupis a Florida corporation doing business in Broward County, Florida. Allstate does not knowwhere it maintains its principal place of business.

5. Allstate is without knowledge regarding the residency of Jose Kudja.

6.Allstate is without knowledge regarding the residency of Rebecca Kudja.

9.Allstate does not have sufficient information regarding whether Plaintiff hassatisfied all conditions precedent prior to the filing of this lawsuit. Therefore, denied.

10.Allstate is an insurance company that issues policies of insurance, includingcoverage for homeowners, automobiles, and other casualty coverages.

11.Allstate markets its policies through many forms of marketing and advertising. Aprospective customer may purchase an Allstate policy over the internet, over the phone, or fromAllstate’s Exclusive Agents.

12.Allstate’s Exclusive Agents are independent contractor insurance agents that arelocated across the country. They interact with prospective and actual Allstate customers.

13.A licensed insurance agent may become an Allstate agent by starting an agencyfrom scratch or by purchasing a book of business from an existing Allstate agent.

14.In order to effectively serve its customers, Allstate has divided its customer basesin the United States into different “regions” and has various employees in these regions.

15.Allstate’s sales leaders are eligible for a sales bonus, which is based on theperformance of their respective markets.

18.The policies sold and written by Allstate agents become a part of the sellingagent’s book of business.

19.On or about June 9, 2010, Brad Ramer of Allstate’s Talent Acquisition Team,emailed Poulos regarding a potential business ownership opportunity at Allstate. The emailattached a brochure which provided an overview of Allstate’s Exclusive Agent Opportunity.Poulos replied to the email, stating that he was interested and would prefer to start exploringexisting agencies for sale. Although Poulos was living in Orlando at that time, he noted thatseveral Florida markets interested him, including Orlando, Naples, Miami and possibly PalmBeach. Allstate does not have sufficient information regarding the employment of Poulos andhis wife at that time.

20.Allstate sales leader Debra Shea was introduced to Poulos after he showed aninterest to Allstate’s recruiting team about starting an Allstate agency. This occurred sometimearound the Summer of 2010.

21.This paragraph contains vague and general allegations which do not meet therequisite level of particularity to allow a response or to support the causes of action. Poulos failsto allege any specifics regarding who engaged in discussions or the time, place, or manner inwhich the discussions occurred. Therefore, denied.

22.This paragraph contains vague and general allegations which do not meet therequisite level of particularity to allow a response or to support the causes of action. Poulos failsto allege any specifics regarding who Poulos was with when he allegedly reviewed the costs andbenefits of becoming an agent, or the time, place, or manner in which any review occurred.Therefore, denied.

23.Debra Shea provided Poulos with information about three books of business thatwere for sale in the Orlando area.

24.Poulos attempted to purchase a book of business in the Orlando area that had beenreferred to him by Debra Shea. While he was negotiating with that seller, Poulos directed hisattention to books of business that were available in south Florida. Poulos did not purchase thebook of business for sale in the Orlando area because he could not agree on a sales price with theseller. Allstate has insufficient evidence as to when or how Poulos met Laura Kaplan.

25.Allstate is without knowledge and therefore denies the allegations contained inthis paragraph.

26.Denied.

27.Denied.

28.Denied.

29.Denied.

30.Allstate is without knowledge and therefore denies the allegations contained inthis paragraph.

31.Allstate is without knowledge and therefore denies the allegations contained inthis paragraph.

32.Because the RMK agency was not located in her sales territory, Debra Shea didnot know anything about the RMK agency. Nevertheless, as a matter of practice and forconfidentiality reasons, Allstate employees do not comment about why an agency is for sale orhas been closed. Allstate employees advise a potential buyer that such information must beobtained from the seller of the book of business.

33.Allstate has insufficient evidence regarding Poulos’ inquiry with Jose Kudja. There maining allegation in this paragraph is denied.

34.Allstate advised Poulos that it could not disseminate or disclose proprietary andconfidential information, including financial reports, of its current and former Allstate agentswithout their permission. In this case, with Jose Kudja’s authorization, Allstate provided Pouloswith financial reports of the RMK Agency that Poulos had requested. When Poulos askedAllstate representatives why the RMK Agency was no longer operating, the Allstaterepresentatives advised Poulos that he should seek that information from Jose Kudja.

35.This paragraph contains vague and general allegations which do not meet therequisite level of particularity to allow a response or to support the causes of action. Poulos failsto allege any specifics which Allstate employees Poulos spoke with, nor does this paragraph statethe time, place, or manner in which the discussion(s) occurred. Therefore, denied.

36.On September 27, 2010, Allstate informed Poulos that Allstate’s agencyestablishment team approved Poulos’ purchase of the RMK Agency’s book of business. Pouloswas informed that he would be appointed as an Allstate agent on December 1, 2010, providedthat he completed his licensing and financing requirements. At this time, Poulos already knewthat the RMK Agency was not operating. Further, Allstate had advised Poulos it could notdivulge confidential information about the RMK Agency without specific authorization, and thatPoulos should discuss such matters directly with Jose Kudja

37.The statement quoted was sent by email from Janice Brown-Francois on October7, 2010. Otherwise, this paragraph contains vague and general allegations which do not meet therequisite level of particularity to allow a response or to support the causes of action. Poulos fails to allege any specifics regarding which Allstate employees Poulos inquired with, nor does this paragraph state the time, place, or manner in which the inquiry occurred. Therefore, denied.

38.Denied.

39.Allstate has insufficient information to respond to the allegations regardingKudja. With respect to Allstate, denied. This paragraph contains vague and general allegationswhich do not meet the requisite level of particularity to allow a response or to support the causesof action. Poulos fails to allege any specifics, including dates, places, actual misrepresentations,or the identities of the persons involved.

40.Plaintiff entered into an asset purchase agreement with the RMK agency, JoseKudja, and Rebecca Kudja. Allstate has insufficient information regarding Poulos’ reliance onJose Kudja’s representations. All other allegations are denied. The vague and generalallegations regarding Allstate do not meet the requisite level of particularity to allow a responseor to support the causes of action. Poulos fails to allege any specifics, including dates, places,actual misrepresentations, or the identities of the persons involved.

41.Denied.

42.Poulos made inquiries to Allstate employees about who was servicing the RMKagency’s book of business while his purchase of the book of business was pending.

43.Poulos spoke with Janice Brown about other agents servicing the RMK Agency’sbook of business, but Allstate has insufficient information to respond at this time regarding whenthat conversation occurred. Allstate has insufficient information to respond at this timeregarding when Poulos learned that other agents were servicing the book of business. Poulosemailed some Allstate employees about the servicing of the book of business.

44.The statement quoted was sent by email from Richard Cairns on November 22,2010.

45.Denied.

46.Denied.

47.Denied.

48.Denied.

49.Denied.

50.As to Allstate, denied. Allstate has insufficient information regarding the Kudjas’knowledge or intent.

51.Poulos, like all Allstate agents, was required to attend a training program beforehe could be appointed as an Allstate agent. Poulos was eligible to receive an education bonus,which is intended to cover training expenses, after he started working as an Allstate agent.

52.Denied.

53.Denied.

54.Denied. This paragraph fails to specify what changes were made to “Allstatepolicy.”

55.The statement quoted was sent by email from Debra Shea on December 21, 2010.The rest of this paragraph contains vague and general allegations which do not meet the requisitelevel of particularity to allow a response or to support the causes of action. Poulos fails to allegeany specifics, including dates or the identities of the persons he requested audits from.

56.Denied.

57.Denied.

58.Allstate is without knowledge and, therefore, cannot admit or deny the allegationscontained in this paragraph.

59.Denied as to Allstate’s employees. Allstate is without knowledge as to JoseKudja and Rebecca Kudja.

60.Denied.

61.Denied.

62.Denied. Allstate had advised Poulos it could not divulge confidential informationabout the RMK Agency without specific authorization, and that Poulos should discuss suchmatters directly with Jose Kudja.

63.Denied.

64.Denied.

65.Denied.

66.Denied.

67.Allstate is without knowledge and therefore denies the allegations contained inthis paragraph. This paragraph contains vague and general allegations which do not meet therequisite level of particularity to allow a response or to support the causes of action. Poulos failsto allege any specifics, including details of the complaint, the date this occurred, or the identitiesof the persons involved.

68.Allstate is without knowledge and therefore denies the allegations contained inthis paragraph. This paragraph contains vague and general allegations which do not meet therequisite level of particularity to allow a response or to support the causes of action. Poulos failsto allege any specific facts regarding identification of the policies or policyholder, when the policy at issue was written, the identities of the persons involved, or which detail why the policy was not eligible to be reissued.

69.Allstate is without knowledge and therefore denies the allegations contained inthis paragraph. This paragraph contains vague and general allegations which do not meet therequisite level of particularity to allow a response or to support the causes of action. Poulos failsto allege any specific facts regarding when the policy at issue was written, the identities of thepersons involved, or why an error and omission occurred on the policy.

70.Allstate realleges and adopts by reference herein its responses in paragraphs 1through 69.

71.Denied. This paragraph contains vague and general allegations which do notmeet the requisite level of particularity to allow a response or to support the cause of action.Poulos fails to allege any specifics, including dates, places, actual misrepresentations, or theidentities of the persons involved.

72.Denied.

73.Denied.

74.Denied.

75.Denied.

76.Allstate realleges and adopts by reference herein its responses in paragraphs 1through 69.

77.Denied. This paragraph contains vague and general allegations which do notmeet the requisite level of particularity to allow a response, to support the cause of action, or toestablish a fiduciary relationship. Poulos fails to allege any specifics, including dates, places,actual misrepresentations, or the identities of the persons involved.

78.Allstate realleges and adopts by reference herein its responses in paragraphs 1through 69.

79.Denied. Plaintiff fails to allege ultimate facts to support the legal conclusionsasserted.

80.Denied. Plaintiff fails to allege ultimate facts to support the legal conclusionsasserted.

81.Denied.

82.Allstate realleges and adopts by reference herein its responses in paragraphs 1through 69.

83.Count IV of Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, paragraphs 82 through 91,inclusive, asserts a claim against other parties and, therefore, no response is required fromAllstate. However, Allstate specifically denies any allegations related to Allstate in paragraph 83.

84.Unless admitted herein, Allstate specifically and severally denies each and everyremaining allegation set forth in the Second Amended Complaint, including the ad damnum clauses, and demands strict proof thereof.

DEFENSES AND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

By way of defenses and/or affirmative defenses, Allstate states:1. Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint fails to state a cause of action against Allstate under Florida law. For example, as to Counts I and II, Plaintiff does not specifically identify Allstate’s alleged misrepresentations or omissions of material fact, as well as the time,place, or manner in which they were made. Plaintiff also failed to make any allegations of specific, ultimate facts regarding his alleged damages or that Allstate’s conduct caused his alleged damages. For further example, with respect to Count III, Plaintiff does not allegesufficient facts to support his conclusory allegation that Allstate fostered a position of trust withPoulos or that Allstate breached a fiduciary duty to Poulos.

2. Allstate is not liable to Plaintiff for his claimed damages, as such damages were not proximately or legally caused by Allstate.

3. There is no causal relation between the alleged conversations described in the Second Amended Complaint between Plaintiff and various Allstate personnel and Plaintiff’salleged damages.

4. Allstate has made no fraudulent or negligent misrepresentations to Plaintiff.

5. Counts I and II of the Second Amended Complaint are barred because Plaintiff could not have justifiably relied on the alleged misrepresentations of Allstate.

6. Plaintiff is barred from any possible recovery, and any liability is hereby denied,because Plaintiff failed to exercise due diligence in the conduct of his own affairs.

7. In connection with Plaintiff’s purchase of the RMK Agency’s book of business, Allstate owed no duty to Plaintiff to disclose any information about the RMK Agency’s book of business.

8. Allstate and Plaintiff did not maintain a fiduciary relationship.

9. Allstate exercised that care and competence which its business requires.

10. Allstate exercised reasonable care and competence in communicating information to Plaintiff so that it could be understood by him.

11. Allstate exercised reasonable care and competence to ascertain the facts on which its statements were based.

12. Plaintiff has failed to take reasonable steps under the circumstances to mitigate its damages, and any damages awarded to Plaintiff herein should be reduced to the extent they couldhave been avoided through such reasonable mitigation efforts.

13. Plaintiff's claimed damages were the result of and attributable to the negligence,fault, or other action or conduct of Plaintiff. Such negligence, fault or other action or conduct bars any recovery by Plaintiff against Allstate. In the alternative, any damages or claims asserted against Allstate should be barred or proportionately reduced by the negligence, fault, and/or other action or conduct of the Plaintiff.

14. Although liability to Plaintiff is expressly denied, any liability found on the part of Allstate and any damages awarded in favor of Plaintiff are subject to comparative fault under Florida law, and Allstate cannot be liable for more than its proportionate share of any damages awarded. Further, pursuant toFabre v. Mann,623 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 1993), any damages awarded to Plaintiff are subject to apportionment by the jury of the total fault of all persons or entities who contributed to causing the damages.

15. Allstate is entitled to a set off for all sums of money by settlement, judgment, or otherwise that Plaintiff is entitled to, entered into, and/or received from any party or non-party to this action.

16. Allstate is entitled to a set off of the amount equal to any and all payments or benefits received by Plaintiff from any and all collateral sources. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Allstate Insurance Company, demands a trial by jury of all issues so triable and a judgment in its favor on all charges and allegations set forth in Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEI HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing has been furnished by e-mail toMark S. London, EsquireandLisa J. London, Esquireatfilings@thelondonlawfirm.com;mark@thelondonlawfirm.com; and gtrglfr@gmail.com, (Counsel for Plaintiff), this 16th day of April, 2013.

Published by You'reInBadHandsAfter 5 months of this pending discovery request, Allstate delivers some of the requests on the day before and the day of the hearing.

Response to Plaintiff's Motion to Compel.pdf

Published by You'reInBadHandsAfter 5 months of this pending discovery request, Allstate delivers some of the requests on the day before and the day of the hearing.More info:Published by: You'reInBadHands on Nov 04, 2013Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SEVENTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR BROWARD COUNTY, FLORIDA STEVEN POULOS, Plaintiff,

Defendant, Allstate Insurance Company (“Allstate), hereby responds to Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Proper Responses to Plaintiff’s Second Request to Produce, dated July 12, 2013, and states as follows:

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

1.On or about May 1, 2013, Allstate was served with Plaintiff’s Second Request to Produce, which contains 40 requests.

2.Plaintiff’s requests are overbroad, vague, and susceptible to multiple interpretations, and so counsel for Allstate spoke several times at length with counsel for Plaintiff via telephone in an attempt to clarify and/or narrow the requests to determine exactly what documents Plaintiff was seeking

3. After participating in those discussions with counsel for Plaintiff, counsel for Allstate conducted multiple interviews with Allstate employees in an attempt to locate documents which were responsive to Plaintiff’s clarified and/or narrowed requests.

4. Counsel for Allstate advised counsel for Plaintiff that it had identified some responsive documents, but that due to the nature of the documents identified, Plaintiff would have to enter into a confidentiality agreement with Allstate in order for the documents to be produced.

5. Counsel for Allstate emailed a proposed confidentiality agreement to counsel for Plaintiff on July 3, 2012.

6. On July 5, 2013, counsel for Allstate and counsel for Plaintiff spoke via telephone and agreed that later that day Allstate would serve responses to requests 20 through 32 of Plaintiff’s Second Request to Produce, and that it would not produce the initial responsive documents it had identified until the confidentiality agreement had been executed. Counsel for both parties further agreed that Allstate had additional time to respond to the remaining requests and produce documents related to those requests.

7. Per the parties’ agreement, on July 5, 2013, Allstate served written responses to requests 20 through 32 of Plaintiff’s Second Request to Produce. Allstate’s responses indicated that documents bates numbered AIC0000001 – AIC000544 were responsive to Plaintiff’s requests and would be produced once Plaintiff executed the confidentiality agreement.

8. In contradiction of the parties’ agreement and without warning, Plaintiff filed his Motion to Compel Proper Responses to Plaintiff’s Second Request to Produce on July 12, 2013.

10. Plaintiff’s motion requests that the court determine that if Allstate did not file any objections to the remaining requests by July 22, 2013, then the objections should be deemed waived. However, counsel for Plaintiff extended that deadline to July 31, 2013.

11. On July 31, 2013, Allstate had still not collected all of the documents which were responsive to the remaining requests. Therefore, in order to preserve objections, Allstate served its Objections to Numbers 1 – 19 and 33 – 40 of Plaintiff’s Second Request to Produce on July 31, 2013.

13. Allstate’s supplemental response provides additional details regarding its objections to Plaintiff’s requests. However, Allstate writes further to provide support for its attorney-client and work product objections to request number 19.

II. ARGUMENT

14. Privileged documents responsive to request number 19 are identified in Allstate’s privilege log. These documents are privileged because they are investigative materials of Allstate that were prepared in anticipation of litigation, or because they are privileged communications between employees of Allstate and attorneys for Allstate.

15. Joe Cackowski, an Allstate compliance analyst, conducted a regional compliance review for the RMK Insurance Group in which he analyzed information in Allstate’s system regarding the RMK Insurance Group’s policies and policyholders. At the time Mr. Cackowski conducted the compliance review, he knew his findings could result in disciplinary action and/or litigation against the RMK agency, its principals or staff. Since he anticipated that the compliance review could lead to litigation, he maintained his complete investigation file, including his summaries, as confidential.

16. Allstate’s Corporate Security department then opened an investigation into the RMK Insurance Group after it received the regional compliance review regarding the RMK agency. Corporate Security’s investigation was conducted at the direction of an attorney for Allstate and pursuant to the attorney-client privilege.

17. The Corporate Security department knew that its investigation into the RMK agency could result in disciplinary action (including termination of RMK’s Exclusive Agency Agreement with Allstate) and litigation against the RMK agency, its principals, and staff.

18. Corporate Security’s findings were sent directly to an attorney for Allstate, and advice regarding what actions should be taken against the RMK Insurance Group was given by an attorney for Allstate. Corporate Security’s investigation files related to the RMK Insurance Group have been maintained as confidential.

20. Further, Allstate’s investigative materials are privileged in this litigation even though its employees anticipated litigation with the RMK agency, its principals, or staff, and not with Plaintiff. SeePublix Supermarkets, Inc. v. Johnson, 959 So. 2d 1274, 1275 (Fla. 4th DCA 2007) (past investigative materials prepared in anticipation of litigation with past shoplifters retained work product status in present lawsuit against shoplifter);Toward v. Cooper , 634 So. 2d 760, 761 (Fla. 4h DCA 1994) (documents retained work product status even though prepared in anticipation of litigation with a different party); DeBartolo-Aventura, Inc. v. Hernandez, 638 So. 2d 988, 990 fn.1 (Fla. 3d DCA 1994) (“[P]laintiff argued that the work product privilege was available only for work product prepared in anticipation ofthis litigation, but is not available for materials prepared in anticipation ofother litigation. Rule 1.280 is not so limited.”) (emphasis in original); Alachua General Hospital, Inc. v. Zimmer USA, Inc., 403 So. 2d 1087, 1089 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981) (information obtained by hospital in its investigation of a fire was work product as to initial wrongful death litigation and in subsequent litigation).

21. The rationale behind the work product doctrine is that a party should not be entitled to prepare his or her case through the investigative work product of his adversary “where the same or similar information is available through ordinary investigative techniques and discovery procedures.” Intercontinental Properties, Inc. v. Samy, 685 So. 2d 1035, 1036 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997).

22. Plaintiff is not entitled to receive Allstate’s privileged work product materials when he can use the ordinary tools of discovery to learn the facts for himself.See Id (opposing party can learn facts by propounding interrogatories and taking depositions). Plaintiff has not sought any of the requested information by way of interrogatories, and no depositions have been taken in this case. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Allstate Insurance Company, respectfully requests that this Court enter an Order denying Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Proper Responses to Plaintiff’s Second Request to Produce, sustaining Allstate’s objections to Plaintiff’s Second Request to Produce, and for such other and further relief as this Court deems appropriate.